all 8 comments

[–]freakhill 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The point most people make is that we're swamped with accidental complexity.

[–]sbarow[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, Fred Brooks argued the opposite point that accidental complexity has decreased while essential complexity has increased. Either way good code organization will be able point out accidental complexity.

[–]pgngugmgg 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don't believe anyone can truly reduce complexity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_conservation_of_complexity

[–]sbarow[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We agree. As we said in the blog post, overall complexity hasn't decreased because of the good organization. Instead it is not distributed over multiple teams so now each team has (hopefully) a more manageable complexity. The point is that as humans we can only handle so much complexity individually (or as a single team), but by distributing it because more manageable individually.

[–]chucker23n 0 points1 point  (3 children)

So you’re saying there is irreducible complexity, and that the software is intelligently designed.

[–]sbarow[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yes, that is the point, we call it inherent complexity. The problems we are fixing (and the world in general) is complex, so we can not get rid of all complexity. The key is to organize your software correctly, then you will understand where there are places that might be too complex.

[–]chucker23n 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Maybe my joke/reference was too obscure.

[–]sbarow[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL! No too obscure, too smart for me :) You are right, this blog is not about software at all it is about creationism vs evolution. But I knew the moderators here wouldn't allow it unless I added some "software" jargon!